Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003

Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent
much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the
poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and
activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as
strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for '60s radicals like Bill and Hillary
Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to
be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an
organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on
her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical
left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and
strategies: "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971).

"Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute: "From all our legends,
mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and
history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who
rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at
least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

The devil challenged authority and
got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about.
That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating
and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power
than anything else: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power:
how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done with assistance to
the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "[E]ven
if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would
not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real
target is the middle class: "Organization for action will now and in the
decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the
power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of
life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic,
decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized
and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are
to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle
class majority."

But that didn't stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class
for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white
middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and
get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky
winners in "life's lottery."

Alinsky's radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the
American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That
instrument was the Democratic Party.

Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not
surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky's tactics seem
foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative
agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of
Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print
and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The
left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky's rules. The impact
changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United
States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the
Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship
between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a
representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled
by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky's influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends
do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in "Rules for Radicals" it
was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He
states that "to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ...
the practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does
not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's
individual conscience and the good of mankind."

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky's rules
until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media,
including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope
it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky's rules include:

"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to
cause confusion, fear and retreat."

"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with
this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can
live up to Christianity."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to
counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react
to your advantage."

"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop
to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think
Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill
Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against
conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula
Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability
... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be
a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to
mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got
away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still
maintains his Senate seat and power.)

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major
strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that
Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the
Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money
without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the
defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists.
Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the
conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say "yes sir," and hope
the accusations and name calling will go away.

Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental
failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is
the "war on poverty." On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the
public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then
should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the
Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party
was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early '70s. The
reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and
cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather
than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding
the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the
horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible.
That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the
Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are
twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and
should be manipulated because it was "flexible." Whatever happened to the
amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the
Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his
enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have
loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals –
ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former '60s radicals learned from
Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives
did as well.

Alinsky in South Dakota

Remember that Alinsky's advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of
Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee
and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take
handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996
election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.

More
importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or
2002.

In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review's Byron York
gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how
Alinsky's rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep
at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their
Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God's right.

Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the
wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the
modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during
national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is
worse, Republican naïveté' or Democratic cheating and law breaking.

When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton's and Terry McAuliffe's
watch, they whine when they discover they didn't cheat enough to win. When
they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and
give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.

In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started
showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The
Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but
they didn't.

As Byron York relates in "Badlands, Bad Votes": "On Election
Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived
at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota.
Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in
the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people
know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats
who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between
incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was
from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from
California. 'There were no locals, and I've never seen that happen before,'
says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years."

Furthermore, York maintains, "The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated
the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables."

Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and
hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the
Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, "They had the
names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those
he would contact the drivers."

Finally she understood that the influx of
outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters,
an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.

The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and
election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the
election supervisor: "They were on the phone using it to call I don't know
where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were
always talking on it."

When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she
got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. "I felt like they were trying
to intimidate me," she recalls.

In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: "No person may,
in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place
is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a
polling place, maintain an office or communications center. ..."

There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election
officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their
campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November
Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.

There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky's second basic
rule: "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you
want to cause confusion, fear and retreat." The DNC counted on the locals
being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.

Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: "In a
fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to
apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt." In other words, what you
do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The
opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to
do nothing, and so Republicans "move on."

That is the kind of apathy Hitler's
forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal
figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.

In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that
the DNC uses to "ensure voters' rights are protected." But as York relates,
"According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the
polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering,
pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling
places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their
previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains
evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification,
of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee
ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all,
of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson."

According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of
polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are
discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last-
minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.

Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed
hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers
either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the
elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to "move
on."

To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota
residents, read York's November article in National Review Online.

Alinsky Does Nevada

When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the
Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family
pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were
counted as well.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid's slim, 428-vote win against
Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand
how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and
opportunists really work.

A part of the tactic includes breaking the law
when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of
the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian
means.

In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and
general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las
Vegas, "There is an ongoing
investigation into election fraud, but I can't go into any details due to
the nature of the investigation."

Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny
Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka
County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in
a county election in Nevada.

As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where
people don't know the law or will not enforce the law or they are
intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits
holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, when Republicans don't pay attention to the corruption and
allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with
the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins
of commission.

Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in
2004. Why aren't Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not
happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic
lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more
than that and it was against the law.

The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars
and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky's corrupt system to win. That
fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does
the Constitution.

Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections.
More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.

The RNC and the GOP leadership just don't get it. Otherwise they would care
enough to do something about it.

Diane Alden is
a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in political
science, economics and history. Dubbed the "prairie pontificator," she
also has grad work in international economics and international political
movements, plus extensive work in the psychology of behavior in
disordered children, women's issues in Third World countries, creative
writing, and marketing. With a sideline in American Indian studies and
independence and secession movements worldwide, she is also working on
upcoming changes in Canadian politics and the flux in the political
landscape of North America.See her
full bio

TYSK Note: Learn more about the Alinsky Method,
the Delphi Technique and "facilitators". If you work for a major
corporation or a school district, you are sure to have come face-to-face
with this method of group manipulation or, group mind control under the
guise of using the "team" approach to problem solving. Click
on this
link for a short overview article. Once enlightened you are sure to
want to know more. Do a Google
search on either the Alinsky Method or the Delphi Technique. You will not
only learn of its insidiousness, but also see how many groups proudly
claim to use these methods to obtain results!